Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[BlasterBates]

I think the statisticians in the following blind trial did:

http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/10...ns-blind-test/

HTH

The statisticians’ basic point: the starting date is key. If you .... have 1998 as “the” starting point, there is a minor cooling...

Doesn't contradict Easterbrook at all. That's what he said. Of course you can use emotive language, as they have done, to disagree, but that isn't a scientific diuscussion, and a statistician is that a statistician not a climatologist.

[DimPrawn]

Maybe you would care to explain why CO2 is the problem, and H2O is not?

Because taxing CO2 is a lot easier than taxing water vapour.

HTH

[sasguru]

Doesn't contradict Easterbrook at all. That's what he said.

[BlasterBates]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Lets go to the horses mouth shall we:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

So where has the 0.18 degrees warming disappeared since 2000. Note a slight cooling since 2002, and that is over 8 years, a bit more actually if you go from 1998.

Again bears out Easterbrook.

[shaunbhoy]

So it is only significant if it is going up, but not if it is going down?



You couldn't make it up...............unless you are sg, and that is your job.

[doodab]

Maybe you would care to explain why CO2 is the problem, and H2O is not?

The IR absorbtion spectrum for H2O is much greater than for CO2 and there is a hell of a lot of water vapour in the atmosphere. Why do we need to reduce CO2, surely it would be better to remove water vapour from the atmosphere?

Instead we have muppets suggesting we should be pumping more water vapour into the air to help absorb CO2 because that will obviously reduce global temperatures...

(Just to be clear I firmly belive that all this climate mumbo jumbo is balls, it's just that most pro climate change fanatics refuse to have an answer for why CO2 is bad and H20 is good)

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds. However, the warming due to the greenhouse effect of cloud cover is mitigated by the change in the Earth's albedo. According to NASA, "The overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds."

[sasguru]

So it is only significant if it is going up, but not if it is going down?



You couldn't make it up...............unless you are sg, and that is your job.

Epic Fail. But not surprising given your limitations.
HTH.

[shaunbhoy]

Epic Fail. But not surprising given your limitations.
HTH.

Come on sas, step up to the plate. What do some beans and some beans make?? No..........a "small casserole" is not the correct answer even if that is what your computer model claims!!

[Mich the Tester]

What do some beans and some beans make??

some farts and some farts

[sasguru]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Lets go to the horses mouth shall we:




So where has the 0.18 degrees warming disappeared since 2000. Note a slight cooling since 2002, and that is over 8 years, a bit more actually if you go from 1998.

Again bears out Easterbrook.

Both of your last posts miss the point completely (and probably deliberately -I'm assuming you're trolling because I'm taking the charitable interpretation that you're not stupid ).
And that point is that over the short periods discussed you can't infer anything, either warming or cooling.
That is actually a basic tenet when you study time-series in any statistics course.